4 ms·

If it's a reasonable letter, I doubt the way it's addressed makes any difference. Members of Parliament have a duty to listen and respond to their constituents

If it's a reasonable letter, I doubt the way it's addressed makes any difference. Members of Parliament have a duty to listen and respond to their constituents, which in Sunak's case is the people of Richmond, North Yorkshire. I don't live there, but I have lived in a senior government minister's constituency in the past. I wrote one letter, and I did get a reply — I doubt my letter was directly read by the minister, but it was probably tallied up by an assistant "15 letters supporting this so far, 8 against".

dfxm12 4y ago
I also doubt the way it is addressed makes a difference. I doubt my letter was directly read by the minister, We seem to be in agreement.
pm215 4y ago
The difficulty these days is the volume. Rory Stewart (an ex-MP) mentioned on his podcast recently that one of his predecessors in his seat in IIRC the 1950s got about 5 letters a week to deal with; when Rory was an MP in the 2010s he was getting over 20,000 emails a year. It's much easier to have a personal touch in correspondence at 5 a week!
- zhte415 4y ago
  That's about 55 per day, or a little over 100 per working day. Perhaps too many for a detailed personal response for each, but certainly enough to read. Categorising well for future action, response, ongoing follow-up, a part of a staff member's job.
  - pm215 4y ago
    Perhaps, but how much time do we want MPs to devote to reading correspondence versus all the other aspects of their job, such as holding constituency surgeries, reading up on legislation, doing ministerial jobs (which Stewart was at this time), and so on? Especially when a significant fraction of the incoming emails will be the result of some campaign group or another having encouraged its supporters "write to your MP" with a template letter with set of suggested arguments...

4 ms·

If it's a reasonable letter, I doubt the way it's addressed makes any difference. Members of Parliament have a duty to listen and respond to their constituents

by Symbiote 4y ago

dfxm12 4y ago
I also doubt the way it is addressed makes a difference. I doubt my letter was directly read by the minister, We seem to be in agreement.
pm215 4y ago
The difficulty these days is the volume. Rory Stewart (an ex-MP) mentioned on his podcast recently that one of his predecessors in his seat in IIRC the 1950s got about 5 letters a week to deal with; when Rory was an MP in the 2010s he was getting over 20,000 emails a year. It's much easier to have a personal touch in correspondence at 5 a week!
- zhte415 4y ago
  That's about 55 per day, or a little over 100 per working day. Perhaps too many for a detailed personal response for each, but certainly enough to read. Categorising well for future action, response, ongoing follow-up, a part of a staff member's job.
  - pm215 4y ago
    Perhaps, but how much time do we want MPs to devote to reading correspondence versus all the other aspects of their job, such as holding constituency surgeries, reading up on legislation, doing ministerial jobs (which Stewart was at this time), and so on? Especially when a significant fraction of the incoming emails will be the result of some campaign group or another having encouraged its supporters "write to your MP" with a template letter with set of suggested arguments...